ArticleScientific reports2022
Monkey visual attention does not fall into the uncanny valley.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Realistic monkey body animation reveals an uncanny valley in macaque body perception.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- A Possible Neural Basis for Attentional Capture of Faces Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Causal Pharmacological Inactivation in Macaques.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2024Article
- No immediate attentional bias towards or choice bias for male secondary sexual characteristics in Bornean orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A database of heterogeneous faces for studying naturalistic expressions.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The use of gaze to study cognition: limitations, solutions, and applications to animal welfare.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Does the primate face cue personality?Personality neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Very humanlike artificial agents can induce feelings of uneasiness in human perceivers. Stimuli that generate this response are said to occupy "the uncanny valley". Given inconsistent findings in the literature, whether or not nonhuman animals experience the uncanny valley is unclear. Here, we recorded the visual attention of eleven male rhesus monkeys as they viewed faces varying in realness across five levels, with visual attention measured by both number and duration of visual fixations on faces as a whole and on areas of interest within the faces (e.g., eyes, mouth). Face stimuli varied in terms of the realism of the image and behavior depicted by the face (lipsmack, threat, bared teeth, and neutral). We largely found no support that rhesus monkeys perceive an uncanny valley when viewing our stimuli; however, monkeys did generally pay more attention to eyes and less attention to mouths in real images compared to less realistic images. Across all stimuli, monkeys' visual attention was drawn to the mouths of images when teeth were visible. These findings suggest that rhesus monkeys in our study did not display an uncanny valley effect when viewing realistic stimuli but did percieve affective information depicted by faces regardless of how real those faces appear.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.